An Inconvenient Scientist

[Ddrak]

You mean 'damage our economy' like, for instance, the last 40 years since Silent Spring was published?

That argument is a favorite talking point of the oil industry, but it really shouldn't be taken TOO seriously.

Actually, I mean that you have to find a balance between limiting progress and limiting emissions. Like I've said before, I believe the bulk of the issues will be solved when we figure out how to sustain, control and get energy from a fusion reaction. Once you hit that point, you can just set up big-ass plants to simply pull CO2 out of the atmosphere if it bothers you because energy will be cheap enough for it to be viable as a long-term stabilization.

The goal should be the maximizing of quality of life both now and in the future. Measuring that is... interesting.

And Lurker: I apologize if I presented it as a dichotomy. Obviously there are things we can do that don't hurt the economy too and it's retarded to NOT be doing something like that. The only real debate is where it costs more to be environmentally friendly than it does to not be.

Dd

[Rsak]

That pronoun would have given it away, but you didn't use it, you said "you".

Are you done stroking your own egos? Of course it was directed to you Harlowe since we were analyzing Lurker's avoidance of any open and honest discussions. So instead of accepting relevant and important questions on the matter that do not even challenge his holy grail premise that humans are the leading cause of global climate change he avoids the issue because he can't accept the question coming from someone who he doesn't like.

Wow there were only 4 male pronouns in the only sentence describing OMG EARTH EXPLODES or calling people a "denier". So 4 male pronouns vs. 0 general pronouns... You lose.

Lurker is a big boy, he seems perfectly capable of saying what he wants regardless of what I think.

I don't deny his ability to speak for himself, but if you are going to stand out and claim he is avoiding an open and honest discussion because I am the one requesting it then you are only declaring his hypocrisy. I for one would rather not have someone force me into a corner like that. Sadly he seems to have welcomed your diversion and once again avoid actually defending his position.

[Partha]

Actually, I mean that you have to find a balance between limiting progress and limiting emissions. Like I've said before, I believe the bulk of the issues will be solved when we figure out how to sustain, control and get energy from a fusion reaction. Once you hit that point, you can just set up big-ass plants to simply pull CO2 out of the atmosphere if it bothers you because energy will be cheap enough for it to be viable as a long-term stabilizatio

I don't think there's a balance that needs to be struck. Let's face it, man's been getting energy from petroleum products for a few hundred years now, and they've just about reached the end of any engineering breakthroughs to squeeze more energy out of fossil fuels; that is, enough to justify the continued damage to the environment. Most of the things that we can do (more train travel and less air travel, alternative fuels, lower fuel usage) don't offer any 'limiting' of progress - it simply sets up a different set of economic winners and losers. The losers in such activity are, of course, those industries that rely on fossil fuel use, so it's understandable that they're fighting it.

[Partha]

So 4 male pronouns vs. 0 general pronouns... You lose.

Um, there's 3 general pronouns at the start there, Captain Grammar.

Are youdone stroking your own egos? Of course it was directed to you Harlowe since we were analyzing Lurker's avoidance of any open and honest discussions.

[Rsak]

Can you fucking read?

Wow there were only 4 male pronouns in the only sentence describing OMG EARTH EXPLODES or calling people a "denier".

[Lurker]

If you bandy about labels like deniers and take a stance like that then you are only proving your own hypocrisy.

Of course it was directed to you Harlowe

======

And speaking of Harlowe.

First you enable my zealotry, turning me into a laughing stock...

and then you force me into a corner, robbing me of the opportunity to defend my position in an open and honest debate with Rsak.

Curse you!

[Rsak]

So I see taking people's words out of context, twisting their meaning, and ignoring the authority on the matter is a better use of your time then to shedding your hypocrisy on Global Climate change.

[Lurker]

The authority on the matter?

[Rsak]

When it comes to my comments there is no other authority then myself.

[Partha]

HOF that one please.

[Harlowe]

That pronoun would have given it away, but you didn't use it, you said "you".

Are you done stroking your own egos? Of course it was directed to you Harlowe since we were analyzing Lurker's avoidance of any open and honest discussions. So instead of accepting relevant and important questions on the matter that do not even challenge his holy grail premise that humans are the leading cause of global climate change he avoids the issue because he can't accept the question coming from someone who he doesn't like.

Wow there were only 4 male pronouns in the only sentence describing OMG EARTH EXPLODES or calling people a "denier". So 4 male pronouns vs. 0 general pronouns... You lose.

Lurker is a big boy, he seems perfectly capable of saying what he wants regardless of what I think.

I don't deny his ability to speak for himself, but if you are going to stand out and claim he is avoiding an open and honest discussion because I am the one requesting it then you are only declaring his hypocrisy. I for one would rather not have someone force me into a corner like that. Sadly he seems to have welcomed your diversion and once again avoid actually defending his position.

The original post in question was the one you did not use "he" or "him". But thanks for the effort.

You toss around the word "hypocrisy" so much, I'm thinking....you don't really know what this word means.

[Ddrak]

I don't think there's a balance that needs to be struck. Let's face it, man's been getting energy from petroleum products for a few hundred years now, and they've just about reached the end of any engineering breakthroughs to squeeze more energy out of fossil fuels; that is, enough to justify the continued damage to the environment. Most of the things that we can do (more train travel and less air travel, alternative fuels, lower fuel usage) don't offer any 'limiting' of progress - it simply sets up a different set of economic winners and losers. The losers in such activity are, of course, those industries that rely on fossil fuel use, so it's understandable that they're fighting it.

I disagree. Fossil fuels are fundamental to our economy because they are simply the cheapest form of energy available. Coal actually works out pretty much the same as nuclear energy once you include the waste processing and DoE overheads for nuclear plants. Alternative energy sources don't even come close to matching the cost per MWh that coal provides in the volume that coal provides.

Same thing goes with petroleum products - there's simply no cheaper form of portable energy than gas and diesel. Demand a switch to alternate energies and you raise the costs of pretty much everything in the economy (transportation is a factor is basically everything) so you cause economic harm. I believe the current crossover point is somewhere above $5/gallon, and advocating that sort of cost as a "plus" is just silly. Of course it limits progress to kill your economy - there's less money for R&D, less money for other environmental projects and just generally less of everything to go around. Hence you need to strike a balance.

Honestly, if you look at the price of oil recently things are making their own balance anyway. As oil goes up, alternative fuels become more attractive. The only thing I'd think about advocating is a straight levy on gas prices to be put directly to fusion research as a viable source of power to replace coal generation.

Dd

[Jarochai Alabaster]

HOF that one please.

I second that.

[Rsak]

Harlowe,

The post was directed at you and the subject of our discussion was Lurker's avoidance of an open and honest discussion. You said everyone avoids that situation because of my involvement. I responded that if anyone takes that stances and used terms like denier then they are a hypocrite. Your inability to acknowledge that fact is a sign of either your ignorance or your intentional obtuseness for the purpose of trolling. The record is clear for all to see and you are simply wrong on this matter.

[Harlowe]

Rsak,
Sooo, I see taking people's words out of context, twisting their meaning, and ignoring the authority on the matter is a better use of your time then to shedding your hypocrisy. You see I am the authority on what I mean. Not you.

[Partha]

You're missing my point, Dd. Absolute cost per KwH is a bad way to rate the various fuels, especially when you're talking about environmental damage that you'd like to prevent. In the sense of absolute cost, yes - you'll be paying more initially. However, many of the things we CAN do (updating and expanding our mass transit systems, increasing the amount of intermodal transport, high speed rail, etc.) are only 'damaging' to the parts of the economy that need fossil fuels to function - and then only as long as it takes for the companies involved to shift their production. We're already seeing it in the car companies, but they're not responding to the changing economy quickly enough.

[Ddrak]

Absolute cost per KwH is a bad way to rate the various fuels, especially when you're talking about environmental damage that you'd like to prevent.

Huh? We're not talking about that. We're talking about the economic damage it would cause and balancing THAT against the environmental damage. Economic damage is quite excellently measured by comparing cost per Joule. The fact you're bringing in other things shows quite simply the truth in my statement - that you are balancing economic damage (increasing cost/Joule) against other factors.

However, many of the things we CAN do (updating and expanding our mass transit systems, increasing the amount of intermodal transport, high speed rail, etc.) are only 'damaging' to the parts of the economy that need fossil fuels to function - and then only as long as it takes for the companies involved to shift their production.

Moving to mass transit makes macroeconomic sense independently of the environmental issues. It makes society more efficient in producing goods. The real issues there are microeconomic - you have to convince people the savings in taking the train/bus are more important than the convenience of having a car to drive around.

We're already seeing it in the car companies, but they're not responding to the changing economy quickly enough.

That makes no sense. Car companies don't drive the sales, there's perfectly a perfectly good competitive market going on that allows people to purchase the car they want to buy. Where there's demand, the companies will respond.

Dd

[Rsak]

I respect your authority on your comments and expect the same in kind which you have failed to do. In addition you have failed to show any evidence that I have taken your comments out of context while I have show you numerous examples of your trolling. Feel free to continue living in your imaginary world, but you continue to be wrong no matter how much you whine.

[Partha]

Huh? We're not talking about that. We're talking about the economic damage it would cause and balancing THAT against the environmental damage.

You're evidently arguing that the only way we can continue doing business is to continue doing business the same way we have been, or else there's large economic damage. My argument is that even some large changes in how we do things cause no economic damage. There's no economic damage in shipping things by high speed rail as opposed to shipping things by air - the only difference is that instead of the aircraft manufacturer making money, now the guys who make trains make the money. Get my point now?

[Harlowe]

I respect your authority on your comments and expect the same in kind which you have failed to do. In addition you have failed to show any evidence that I have taken your comments out of context while I have show you numerous examples of your trolling. Feel free to continue living in your imaginary world, but you continue to be wrong no matter how much you whine.

I hate to disappoint you with my lack of emotion regarding these posts directed towards you, but I'm not whining. I'm not that invested. I haven't even come close to "whining", so unless of course we are now not the authorities on our own comments (because it's suddenly not convenient for your argument) you are simply...wrong.